Should a justice who participated in ObamaCare’s creation recuse herself from the court’s review of that law? Of course. But then a nominee who lies in confirmation hearings shouldn’t be on the court anyway.

If Justice Elena Kagan were a person of character, she would sit out the Supreme Court’s hearing of the challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

But during her confirmation hearings in June of last year, she indicated she would not. And since this Monday, when the court announced it would take the case, she has done nothing to suggest she will recuse herself after all. Nor has the court made any statement about her recusal, a convention it usually follows when a justice takes himself or herself off a case.

Here are the facts on Kagan: She was the administration’s solicitor general when ObamaCare became law last year. She has acknowledged that she was at a meeting in which state litigation against ObamaCare was discussed, though she said she was not involved in any legal responses concerning the states’ litigation.

We also know that Kagan enthusiastically supported ObamaCare. This is made clear in emails released last week by the Justice Department.

“I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing,” Kagan wrote on the day ObamaCare passed the House in an email to Laurence Tribe, the Harvard law professor who was working at that time in the Obama Justice Department.

On the same day that note was sent, an associate attorney general emailed Justice Department lawyers to organize a health care litigation meeting. A Kagan deputy later emailed her suggesting that she attend.

Yet, apparently she sees no issue with her ruling on a law she helped create? Hell, why not just let Pelosi or Reid decide, or Obama himself? This is a travesty, and makes a mockery of our constitution and our founding principles. Just like most the manner in which this abomination of a bill was passed in the first place. And, frankly, this type of chicanery suits this administration to a T!

We should not be surprised at this, not in the least. This president has thumbed his nose repeatedly at the constitution, and the will of the people. Lots more at The Other McCain, where Smitty offers this summation of this bunch of Neo-Marxist rabble that seemingly holds everything great about liberty, and about America, in utter contempt.

From all appearances, pretty much everyone appointed by BHO is a shameless, amoral, ideological hack of mediocre skill at best. In the case of ObamaCare, there doesn’t seem to be any obvious way to get enough lift under that pig to make it fly. The discussion, I’m guessing, will revolve around how to reject ObamaCare narrowly enough that the ground remains un-laid for the next obvious step: realizing that the SCOTUS under FDR beclowned itself by not rejecting the New Deal. Progressives have cherished 10th Amendment violations to protect, you see. Commie morons.

Step back though, and let’s consider a post-Progressive era. For surely this noise cannot continue. How in the world do we restore faith and transparency in our institutions after BHO, Holder, and Kagan? We’ve got a collection of people in higher office that don’t seem to understand anything, anything at all, except power. What do we do about that?

Is voting these clowns out, on its own, enough? Or do they leave enough residue of abuse, enough tradition of disregard, even rejection, of the Enlightenment principles that inform our founding documents that this administration completes the ‘mission kill’ of our Constitution by Progressivism?

That’s a hard thought, coming as it does in a context of economic ruin. However, as with calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme, the sooner we face fact that the effect of Progressivism has been an Article V amendment of the Constitution via ‘settled law’, the sooner we can set about unwinding the evil the Progressives wrought.